Morning journal and courier., 1887-02-14
THE GREAT TELEPHONE SUIT.
One Hundred Million Dollars Involved
 Cala

VAS HI AJOAAaE AA VI v oN In the Cele bratrd Case.
 | WASHINGTON, Feb 3.-The magnitude ot | the interests involved-by many placed as | high as one hundred millions of dollars-the l rival claims to one of the greatest of modern l inventions, the charges of fraud against Bell l and of imposture against Drawbaugh, the brilliant array of counsel, the scientific theories advanced in explanation of the mar vellous combination of the laws of acoustics and of electricity to produce the miracle known as telephy aud the unusual time given to the argument by the court make a truly celebrated case of the telephone controversy which has just been argued and submitted to the Supreme court of the United States. When the case opened two weeks were as signed to the argument and for the first time in the history of the court the reading of opinions on Mondao, decision day, was omitted that the time might be given to the counsel in the telephone eases. There were five cases, by as many different companies and inventions, all antagonizing the Bell pat ent. The Dolbear case was only for piece of the telephone, only a plea to be let in with the Bell petent, to the exclusion ot all others. on the ground that Dolbear ought to be allowed to use half of 8 telephone of his own with half of Bells. The Molecular company deny the originality of the Bell invention and insist that Philip Reiss, the German. was the inventor. The Clay com pany attacks the Bell company on the ab- sence of some legal formalities in it's organ ization as we'll as othe rwise. The Peoples company claim that the telephone was the invention of Daniel Drawbaugh, of Pennsyl- vania, and that he first produced both the magnets and the carbon telephone. The Overland company deny the validity of Bells patent and charges that Bell by cor rupt aid of patent attorney and the corrupt conduct of an examiner in the patent alice purloined from Elisha Gray his invention of a transmitter. This ia brief outline is the different directions from which came the great and combined onslaught on the Bell people in the Supreme court. Bells lawyer met the assaults of their antagonists in these cases with the claim that to make 8 telephone of the Reiss divice a scientific impossibility; that Drawbaugh was 8 charlatan and impos- ter, and that Gray had admitted that Bell had created the telephone. The court has some knotty and intricate questions to de- eide and months may elapse before conclu- sion is reached in these cases. Such Wheth- CT the laws of electricity and acoustics can be monopolized by discoyerer of the power in combination. If yes. then who was the discoverer; if nay, then how much of the telephone is patentable; Whether Drawbaughs claim to priority of invention is good, and whether Grays caveat furnished Bell the basis of his patent.
 It is the opinion of many people, including, it is said, the Bell people themselves, that the greatest danger to the Bell patent comes from the Drawbaugh patent, whose attornies produced what the claimed was overwhelm- ing testimony that their client exhibited speaking telephone at his shop near Harrisburg, Pa., long before the date of Bells patent. Seventy witnesses have sworn that they talked through it. MT. Sto1row Molecular company and MT. Lysander Hill for the Drawbaugh company made the sci entifc arguments before the court and each seemed to have completely mastered all ex- isting knowledge and all prevailing theories concerning the laws of sound and electric ity. They were listened to with close atten- tion and were often questioned by the judges. The case cannot be decided until each judge has examined the record-some twenty thousand pages-as fully as he desires. Then in consultation of will bs given and then the chief justice will assign to of the majority the duty of writing the opinin of the court. Copies of the record are now at each judges room. Whether the months vacation just taken by the court will afford sufficient time for its examination is somewhat doubtful. The opinion may be reached in time to be written and announced before the adjournment in May or it may not be-ready before the Octo-